Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ira A. Lipman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ira A. Lipman[edit]

Ira A. Lipman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. I would usually prod this, but the creator (who also stated he has no COI/PAID connections) is active and disagrees with me on notability, so I am taking this for a wider discussion here. This biograpny has zero depth source. The sources present mention the subject in passing (as, for example, does the NYT obituary of his father, which simply mentions he had a son), and a number are related to the subject by virtue of his work (so can be seen as self-published, since such sources are usually based on information written by the subject himself or by someone on their staff). Endowing an award or an educational or another institution is not sufficient to be encyclopedic (it does not match any WP:BIO criteria), and related COI and clearly not independent coverage like [1] is of dubious reliability. If the subject had significant impact on the society, they should be discussed in proper, reliable, and in-depth sources, which are not present here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus: You are literally stalking me, going through my contributions, and harassing me by nominating my referenced articles for AFD. This is becoming extremely unpleasant. If you look at the history, you'll notice that this article was "in use" and I wasn't done yet. Please STOP!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Piotrus: I have significantly expanded the article. Would you like to withdraw this AFD?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Lipman has hired 17,000 people in 130 locations in the US, UK, Puerto Rico and Canada. The Memphis University reference is for his wife; notice that I didn't create an article about her, but about him. Also, Newspapers.com has 259 matches about him. I just haven't had time to go through all of them yet.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: a quick Google search suggests this person is likely notable; having a chair named for him is a good indication of this. The article is on the fluffy side--any time there's more on board memberships and stuff than on someone's career, that means there's room for improvement. ZigZig, this nomination is not harassment, though Piotr, your additional commentary is useless in this AfD--if you got a complaint you should take that elsewhere. By the same token, ZigZig, you wrote 3400 articles so you can expect a nomination or two, maybe more. Also, holy moly, 3,400 article: good work! Drmies (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drmies: It was "in use" because I wasn't done, but someone removed the tag and then Piotr decided to target some of my recent creations, instead of doing the right thing by expanding them. I think he is trying to discourage us from editing Wikipedia. I certainly don't feel like editing right now.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drmies: What do you think now?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s: I still don't see what makes him notable (employing few thousand people is not anywhere on WP:BIO that I can see). He is a relatively rich and influential person who every few years gets a mention in (usually local) newspaper, in passing, due to his business of philanthropic activities. He also published some articles, a book, is involved with several think tanks - enough to get few hundred Google/GNews hits, but I'll ask once again: which part of WP:BIO is he meeting? User:Drmies, see also WP:GHITS/WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I will also commend Zizzig - not only for thousands of articles, vast majority of which are clearly encyclopedic - but for being able to write consistent biography using so many in passing sources. Reading and synthesizing them requires skill. However, the fact that we one can create a biography does not mean one should. The subject needs to be notable and I think I will repeat myself that so far this has not been shown. PS. Playing devils' advocate against myself, I will of course acknowledge WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Thanks to Zigzig20s efforts, we do have plenty of multiple independent sources with no in-depth coverage. The gist is that the coverage has to be non-trivial: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial." The sources I see seem to be, however, in the vain of ("John Smith at Big Company said...") or do not seem independent (again, a biographical note related to his donation or work is almost certainly written by him or his staff). Can we find sources that are either in-depth, or at least non-trivial, semi-in-depth and independent? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable as a prominent businessman and philanthropist. We live in a capitalist world. Money talks. His company was responsible for the security of 20 airports, had 17,000 employees on its payroll, merged with the largest security company in the US (of which he served as vice chairman). Perhaps you don't like the history of business, but that all makes him notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against businesspeople, except that they have to meet our policies. Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not contain any special provisions for businesspeople, and I as still waiting for someone to point out how he meets BIO. I did explain in detail why he has difficulty meeting that policy, and all I hear back is WP:HEISIMPORTANT, which is NOT a valid argument here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s: This is not a comment that meets our WP:NPA, WP:AGF policies. I'll kindly ask you to WP:REFACTOR it voluntarily. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Striking out a comment that is no longer relevant due to refactoring of the discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you want to play a boring game, he meets 1 and 2 of these. The award is the "Stanley C. Pace Leadership in Ethics Award from the Ethics Research Center". The historical record, taken from countless third-party sources, shows he's been at it for over four decades.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also basic criteria, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". More than 30 references. His 1975 book has been widely reviewed; I could add more reviews if you insist. But there's also a Washington Post article solely about him.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnpacklambert: The third-party sources appear to disagree with you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnpacklambert: He also influenced a bill in Congress.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zigzig, I appreciate the work you've done. But much of that coverage, even if I can't fully see it because it's behind a paywall, I can see that it's local, and local means minor. As for your comments above, about the items 1 and 2 of the notability guideline, that award appears not to be a notable award, and the depth and length of the record is precisely what we're arguing over. I agree with Piotrus that it's not enough for an independent biography, but the Washington Post article, for instance, which surely discusses him even if the article itself is really about the company, will help establish a decent if short biography in the Guardsmark article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an agreement with Newspapers.com and we are encouraged to use it for citations. You can ask for a free account. Your aversion towards local press sounds like snobbery. We may merge Guardsmark with his article actually, but we should definitely keep him, given not only the extent of media coverage, but also his role in the security industry, his influence on the bill in Congress, his role at the Council on Foreign Relations, Simon Wiesenthal Center, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drmies: He's been called a "pioneer" by The New York Times.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His work has also been cited by the United States Department of Justice's Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the just recently posted commentary above, User:Zigzig20s has linked to Wikipedia articles and not articles or content from the New York Times, USDOJ, LEAA, and U.S. HJSCTHS. This gives the impression that he or she has just posted sources which he or she has not. He or she has merely posted links to other Wikipedia articles. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aversion to local papers is not "snobbery". It is born of impact analysis. One of the places I know where our guidelines 100% discourage local paper use is in the academic notability criteria "cited as an expert in the press." If the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post turns to a economist at Wayne State University to give key expert commentary in an article, it is probably a sign he is the top expert in the field. If the Detroit News turns to the same expert, it just shows that he is the most available expert to the reporter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you appear not to understand how our agreement with Newspapers.com works. They mostly have articles from local newspapers, which contain lots of useful information and good reliable third-party sources for us. The New York Times keeps most of their articles under a paywall, and we don't have an agreement with them. Anyway, I have added a couple of articles from the Times that I found on google. He's a "pioneer", cited in official documents by the government.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His role as "pioneer" meets "Additional criteria, 2"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The field is security.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. I think that the enormous amount of additional content that Zigzig20s has added since votes were originally cast shows that WP:GNG is easily met. Edwardx (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the account coordinator for the Wikipedia Library's partnership with Newspapers.com, which aggregates many of the sources cited in the article, I suggest that objectors visit the project page. The introduction states "It is particularly suited for Wikipedia content about the 18th, 19th and the first 3⁄4 of the 20th century in the United States and global topics affecting the United States. The collection includes some major newspapers for limited periods (i.e., 50 years of the New York Times), but mostly consists of regional papers from the 1700s onward. Very few titles go beyond the late 1980s." Far from being "behind a paywall" articles become freely available when clipped and added to citations. HazelAB (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't see how that is an argument for keeping the article. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Drmies - that is not a relevant argument for keep during an AfD - it is way off topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. New York Daily News article is in-depth coverage of the person. Some of the remaining 37 (!) refs push him easily over the WP:GNG. On top of that he's important. He's not just a D-list reality-show actor or something. That matters, some. There are better ways to improve the Wikipedia than deleting articles with 38 refs. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not every citation here supports the subject's notability, but enough sources do to establish the subject as a notable businessman and expert on security,and perhaps a notable philanthropist as well. The Washington Post article has extensive content about Lipman, not just his company. [2] Objections to the newspapers.com sources as "local" are misplaced, especially to the extent that we are talking about reprints of articles from national sources or syndicates such as the Associated Press [3], United Press International [4], The Christian Science Monitor[5], or Parade [6]: these are cited to papers that happen to be included in the free use licenses at newspapers.com, but they are by no means products of "local" reporting. (To reduce misunderstanding, it would be desirable to include the names of the original syndicator or other source in the footnotes for these articles.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The links posted above by User:Arxiloxos are wiki links - they link to Wikipedia articles and not to newspaper sources. It may give the appearance of adding sources or references, but it is only appearance, not actual sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please click on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Not Wikilinks.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. User:Arxiloxos - I apologize. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ira_A._Lipman&oldid=1075697778"